Let's take a look at a leading scientist who does not blame global warming for the decline in fish populations off the east coast. The reduction in fish population is due to overfishing, the destruction of coastal habitat, and pollution. The Tar Heel of the Week is Doug Rader, the Raleigh-based chief oceans scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund. He is considered one of the top fisheries expert in the U.S, and has been very active in working on cooperative solutions between fisherman, government, and others to preserve the oceans. This week's N&O article about Doug is here - http://www.newsobserver.com/2015/01/03/4447100_tar-heel-of-the-week-doug-rader.html?sp=/99/100/&rh=1 Also - he has stated that AGW has an insignificant role with the problems we have fishery issues globally. The problems are due primarily to overfishing, the destruction of coastal wetlands, and pollution - as outlined in the article.
Fraud, Are you paid for you propaganda services by the Senate Majority PAC or NextGen Climate Action?
The following letters were published in the Forum Section of EOS in 2006 in response to the Council of the American Quaternary Association having taken issue with an award conferred on climate skeptic Michael Crichton by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. This back issue of EOS, is now available free via the internet. I have taken the liberty of underlining parts that may be of special interest. Keep in mind that much has transpired since 2006, and opinion then may not be the same as opinions now. From: Eos, Vol. 87, No. 43, 464, 24 October 2006 FORUM On Award to Crichton It is somewhat unusual for a scientific society to criticize the actions of another learned or professional society [Brigham-Grette et ai, 2006]. So when the Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) takes issue with the American Association of Petroleum Geologists over its 2006 Journalism Award to writer and climate skeptic Michael Crichton, citing a recently issued government scientific report [Karl et al, 2006], one must take notice. The AMQUA council members demonstrate that they have not read (or understood) the cited Karl et al. U.S. Climate Change Science Program report. It is true that the report's summary (and press release) claim 'clear evidence' for anthropogenic global warming, but the report itself clearly contradicts this. Specifically Figure 5.4G, which compares key observations with the calculations of major greenhouse models, shows a considerable disparity. There are other differences between observed and calculated 'fingerprints' of temperature trends [Singer, 2006], further demonstrated by more detailed comparisons [Douglass et ai, 2004]. Note that even if there were agreement between observed trends and those calculated from greenhouse models, it would not logically constitute 'proof of anthropogenic global warming, but simply make it more plausible. However, the demonstrated disagreement between observations and greenhouse models falsifies the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and argues convincingly that human effects are minor and that natural factors are the main cause of current warming. This explanation fits well with the paleoclimatic evidence for a (roughly) 1500-year climate cycle,observed in ice cores, ocean sediments, and a variety of other data [Singer and Avery, 2006]. AMQUA members must surely be familiar with such evidence. The obvious disparity between the U.S. Climate Change Science Program report and its summary illustrates the common problem of relying on a potentially distorted summary for policy-makers. Perhaps we need a policy for summary-makers. References: Brigham-Grette,J.,et al. (2006), Petroleum geologists' award to novelist Crichton is inappropriate, Eos Trans. AGU, 57(36), 364. Douglass, D. H., B. Pearson, and S. FSinger (2004), Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L13208,doi: 10.1029/2004GL020103. Karl,T. R., S. J. Hassol, C. D. Miller, and W L. Murray(Eds.) (2006),Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere: Steps for understanding and reconciling differences—Synthesis and assessment product 1.1, Clim. Change Sci. Program, Washington, D. C. (Available at www.climatescience.gov) Singer,S.F(2006),Climate responses,Geotimes, 5/(9),6. Singer,S.Fand D.T.Avery (2006),Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, 260 pp., Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, Md. —S. FRED SINGER, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville; Director and President, Science & Environmental On Award to Crichton The recent Eos Forum article from the Council of the American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) attacking the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG), Eos, 87(36), 364,2006) goes beyond the pale of reasonable promotion or defense of AGU's position regarding global climate change and is a lamentable low for AGU in overarching political demagoguery. It is certainly within the purview of AGU to adopt a position concerning anthropogenic forcing of current global warming, as the association did in 2003. However, to challenge the competency, integrity, and intent of another scientific organization whose council and members read the data differently is truly reprehensible. The tone of the letter and AGU's position in promoting this view are nothing short of evangelical environmentalism with a dark shade of inquisitional environmental repression. Truly, the credibility, impartiality, and integrity of AGU are at question in the debate over climate science. Evidently AMQUA believes its position to be so righteous that it should sit in judgment on all other professional scientific societies. Such a poorly reasoned and self-justifying position screams political bias. One must question the purpose and intent of AGU in publishing the AMQUA letter. It is AGU that needs to admit its new stripes—an overt political action group pushing an environmental political agenda under the aegis of scientific study. By attacking AAPG through the proxy of AMQUA, AGU has shown its true character. The 'inconvenient truth' here is that AGU lacks the integrity to act under its own name and has gone far outside the bounds of scientific inquiry and entered the realm of trenchant advocacy for a preferred political agenda. Evidently, neither the leadership nor many of the members of AGU can distinguish between promotion of their own political views and honest scientific controversy. If the evidence for anthropogenic forcing of global warming were truly as compelling as AGU has stated, no controversy would today exist. It is specifically because there is a large body of evidence [e.g.,Broeker and Stocker, 2006] which contradicts the anthropogenic hypothesis that controversy persists. Too often now, models are taken as data and their results taken as fact, when the accuracy of the models in predicting even short-term effects is poor and the fundamental validity for most climate models is opaque [Phillips et al, 2006;Saskowsky, 2006]. Unquestionably, AAPG has taken the high ground in the debate over anthropogenic effects on global warming by stating its own position based on the skilled and reasoned interpretation of the data by some of the most gifted scientists in geology and geophysics, absent the need to assault the credibility of other scientific societies and their members. Let the data, all of the data, speak, if you dare. The foregoing is my personal opinion and should not be construed as representative of the American Association of Fetroleum Geologists. References: Broecker,WS.,andT.FStocker (2006),The Holocene CO, rise: Anthropogenic or natural?, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(3), 27. Phillips.T. J., K. AchutaRao, D. Bader, C. Covey, C. M. Doutriaux, M. Fiorino, PJ. Gleckler, K. R. Sperber, and K. E.Taylor (2006), Coupled climate model appraisal: A benchmark for future studies, Eos Trans. AGU, 87(19), 185,191-192. Sasowsky, I. D. (2006), Model verification and documentation are needed,£bs Trans.AGU, 87(25),248. —KEVIN CORBETT, Sequoia Production, LLC, And here is the editors response: From The Editor The contribution by Kevin Corbett, as is true of the AMQUA piece, many features and other Forum items in Eos, and research articles in GRL, JGR,WRR, and other AGU journals, demonstrates that AGU does just what Corbett says we should. We "let the data, all of the data, speak...." AGU policy and its implementation allow no less. AGU is proud of its process and the way it is executed. AGU welcomes the opportunities provided to put all sound science before the membership and the interested public. Let us get a few facts straight. The publication of an item in Eos does not represent AGU's view unless so stated. (See the masthead's final sentence.) The AMQUA piece was not solicited. It was reviewed and revised, just as Corbett's piece was. Neither the AMQUA piece nor the Corbett piece reflects or promotes an AGU position. My remarks do, however, represent an AGU view. AGU's current climate change position, which was adopted in December 2003, is an update of a 1998 position and will be revisited over the next 12 months. These statements have been prepared by climate scientists who have various perspectives and broad disciplinary background. In preparing such statements, AGU can draw on expertise from over 8000 members who have identified themselves with global change science. AGU does not have any agenda in this arena beyond ensuring that the best available science is used in making public policy. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
They recommend no such ridiculous scale, you are an idiot. Data is ALWAYS scaled to use the whole Y axis. Are you really this stupid? Or are you just lying? I'm thinking both. Telling that piezoe liked this. He must also think that using deceptive charting practice is the right thing to do. Besides, you are STILL missing the point. Your chart is NOT heat content.
No, the last decade has been the hottest on record and this year is the hottest on record. I do agree that until this year the yearly temp has not been higher than the spike high of 98. In trading terms the air temps have been in a consolidation pattern within an uptrend. The uptrend has not been broken. The word "pause" has no real scientific definition.
Because it is based on the difference of the average of a decade, not absolute content. They used 1980-1990 decade as a baseline. Lucrum.
So you are pushing a chart of projected ocean heat content using a scale that is less than the instrument error used when measuring temperature which the projected heat content is derived from. Obviously you have a flawed and twisted agenda.
And I basically agree with him. Overfishing has been by far the biggest problem with the fisheries in general. Actually, pollution per se is a very small part of the problem. Wetland and now coral reef bleaching and destruction is a big problem but they are largely due to GW. With climate and the oceans warming and changing, local changes to fish populations are occurring but they are also a small part of the overall overfishing problem.